The link for a one-off contribution is here: https://contribute.theguardian.com/
Or for a subscription, here: https://subscribe.theguardian.com/
I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.
* no tracking of the articles I choose to read, as in online news subscriptions
* cross-section of articles that I wouldn't otherwise seek out (no filter-bubble)
* very little advertising, none of it obtrusive
It's also a great way to support real journalism, and learn about world news, not the parochial junk my local tabloids cover.
Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.
Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.
Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.
I think The Guardian has lost much of their balance in the past couple years though. I see too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news lately and while I appreciate well thought out opinions I don't like them creeping into "News". When it does I feel the ghost of Orwell leaning over my shoulder and whispering "there it is".
The reason their extreme bias shows: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
This is a bit of an exception, because it is quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen them put out. But they definitely have a bias, towards the Clinton/Blair faux-left to the point where they not only dislike the right, but also the people like Sanders/Corbyn.
Edit: Apparently Assange didn't say the things the article claims. If so, it's just shoddy research on the part of the article author, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted.
It was during our elections last year that they leaned too far for me to take them seriously as a real journalistic endeavor and I scrapped the bookmark because they were wasting my time.
It wasn't easy though. I really wanted to make a donation and support their stated mission of being truly independent news provider, but I just couldn't because they're not. They have a very clear agenda that's promoted with a left wing tilt but really only supports a different group of corporatists than the right.
I will not subsidize that, and that's really what they're asking from us.
IMO, around that time the editorial policy changed noticably too.
Who writes how the left ignored the working class and how the working class supported Trump before the election:
March 2016: Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why
July (post BrExit): The world is taking its revenge against elites. When will America's wake up?
> one Google image search using technology “trained” to recognise faces based on images of Caucasians included African-American people among its search results for gorillas
> Microsoft created a chatbot, Tay, which could “learn” and develop as it engaged with users on social media. Within hours it had pledged allegiance to Hitler
> Robots are racist and sexist. Just like the people who created them
The author is determined to see sexist intent in everything, and bends the truth to match. (E.g. claiming Microsoft software pledge allegiance to Hitler.)
That said, steer clear of the opinion pieces and you can avoid the worst of this junk.
The points she makes otherwise might indeed be worthy of discussion. However I think some of what she describes is simply misclassified data - black people get misclassified, but so do white people (but of course it doesn't make the news). Unless she can prove that white people are misclassified less frequently than black ones, she has no point.
The Tay incident was not due to bias but to trolls purposely feeding the IA racist information. Despite what she vaguely claim later in the article it wasn't encoded, not even subconsciously, in the bot by the developers.
I never saw that claim in the article. She did claim that white, straight men dominate fields of technology and robots, but that doesn't seem controversial to me (though I would happy to see evidence against it).
I'm not sure that either of your points diminish the argument of the article. I didn't get the impression that the author thought that developers are purposefully creating racist robots. To me, she was saying that those who suffer bigotry the least will also be the least likely to account for it in the systems they design because they see the world as less bigoted than it is and has been. Sure, in hindsight, the two examples you mentioned can be explained as poor sources of information. But if we're going to avoid bigoted tech & robots, we'll need to catch those issues beforehand, and I think her point is that more diversity would lead to better foresight on such things.
Take the example of their opinion pieces today.
Article 1: French polls show populist fever is here to stay as globalisation makes voters pick new sides
Article 2: How the opposition parties can still make a contest of this election
Two reasonable articles, which are not amongst the 10 most viewed or clicked on. What is amongst the most viewed opinion pieces then?
Article 1: Allow me to womansplain the problem with gendered language
Article 2: Serena Williams’s pregnant victory reminds us how amazing women’s bodies are. Subititle: Are women the weaker sex? I don't think so.
So the well-reasoned, sane articles are ignored, while the clickbait rubbish is well....clicked on, makes their 'most viewed' and is featured on their front page. A large part of the problem is people's tendencies to click on what you call "socially regressive" viewpoints. It's not like the people agree with them either, most of the comment section involves bashing the author. Some people are just looking for articles to get angry too.
That's not great, but for US news they are certainly in the top 3(alongside NYT and WaPo) and the only ones who are free.
Nobody is objective. The Guardian is clear in how it differentiates news and opinion.
High clarity is what helps people most. Couple that with some diversity in sources, and one ends up reasonably well informed.
Anyway, you make an unsubstantiated (and practically incomprehensible) claim and yes, you're going to catch "flak" for it. HN being the advocate for substantive discussion.
I am quite enjoying it these days. It presents the same news from various news sources and highlights a crowd sourced 'bias' rating for them. So, you can see the same story side-by-side from Fox News, New York Times, WashPo, etc.
No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)
What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things.
(1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium."
Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.
I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.
(And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.)
Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency
They are not even close to the hard left that the media paints them as.
The Guardian turned their back on investigative journalism and went for columnists (that write columns concerning the agency news). This was decided years ago and last year there were more cuts to the budget, so even more agency news and flim-flam columnist nonsense.
How can the Guardian compete when they are just churning out the same agency news stories as everyone else?
Opinion pieces from a select few columnists worked fine in the days of print but it does not cut it online, people are not that bothered about what their columnists think.
It is too late to turn the sinking ship around, the rest of the Scott Trust money will be thrown down the same hole and it will be game over, with cycles of cutbacks along the way. At the moment the chickens are coming home to roost, a friend in the Farringdon area recently took on two refugees from the Guardian, or maybe they were 'rats leaving the sinking ship'. In former times the Guardian would be the company you would want to work for, not flee because the writing is on the wall.
Had they done it differently and actually done the independent reporting and investigative journalism instead of the agency news with columnists, then things could have been different.
Nowadays the 'please donate' deal sounds a bit like 'give us some money then we will do this investigative journalism stuff, honest'. It is back to front and not as if they really believe honst money can be made from honest journalism - everything is someone else's fault.
If you want to take a moral position it should be based on an overall assessment of whether the world will be improved by a particular news source ceasing publication. Given the rumored state of the industry it's easy to imagine that in a few years we could be in a "post news" society, where reputable sources have not managed to keep the lights on and it's only the populist publications that are still in business. If the long term choice is between "support a publisher that once made a bad mistake in a technology story" and "The Daily Mail is the only source of news", well to me that's not a moral dilemma.
It's £5 a month, and whilst you do get some extras it is mostly just to support their journalism.
You can pay more as partner and patron if you choose.
Also, when I had Netflix I found it to have a pretty terrible selection after I'd finished the two or three series I liked. Maybe that's just me though.
Finally, at £145 a year, the BBC costs quite a bit more.
Because anyone in the world can have free access
Only BBC television costs £145 a year.
> BBC iPlayer only works in the UK.
> Sorry, it’s due to rights issues.
Yes, of course??
Since I spend 9 months of the year in Spain I use a vpn by default and I access iplayer just the same way I would back home.
The not free aspect amounts to a tick box to say you have a licence. To most people on the internet today this does mean it is free.
The point was to explain why the bbc is expensive compared to netflix since it is a lot less convenient to get content for nothing.
Yes, I do have a licence and subscribe to netflix as well as prime. The point was theoretical.
However, the BBC news I use does appear to be funded by licence-fee payers, among other sources.
"The World Service is funded by the United Kingdom's television licence fee, limited advertising and the profits of BBC Worldwide Ltd. The service also gets £289 million each year (agreed up to 2020) from the UK government."
I can assert this because I used to work there.
Same here. I had a subscription and they'd usually arrive in Germany a couple of days too late. Luckily, Germany has Der Spiegel, which is also more than worthy supporting.
And of course get enough traction for it to get popular and be used by enough people to be sustainable.
Until then, your problem will be mentioned on HN again and again...
1. Autopay using PayPal or something or the other.
2. Open the payment links with the relevant fields autofilled.
What if adblockers kept (locally stored) stats on sites you visited (where ads were blocked) and how often, and provided a link to donate to them, if you were so inclined. In your case, it might say "You visit guardian 10 times per week. To donate, click here, or to subscribe, click here".
If I can read The Guardian for free, I'm not going to pay for it. Period. And I'm going to block the ads if I can. Note that I'm not saying I would never pay for access to content; I do, e.g. Netflix, and my town's local newspaper website (which has subscription-only access).
Content is either worth paying for or it isn't. News orgnizations are in a tough spot here because there are so many news sources online it's not necessary to pay anyone. Anything newsworthy will be covered by a number of sources. The exceptions are local news, or highly technical/industry-specific news and analysis.
interestingly, their lack of a paywall is a definite part of the value i feel i'm getting for my subscription; if i had to log in to read them i'd be a lot less likely to subscribe in the first place. i wish more sites followed an explicit "pay to help keep us free for everyone" model.
As a member I shouldn't see these but I am often not logged in so I still do which is annoying but unavoidable. But to be honest they are not that intrusive (mostly a paragraph at the bottom of an article) and 1 million times better than a paywall.